|
Richard’s Correspondence on Mailing List ‘B’ with Respondent No. 4
RESPONDENT: Richard, I have thought deeply about our discussions of late.RICHARD: If you say so, then it must be so ... for you, that is. However, the remainder of this post shows no evidence whatsoever of deep thought ... on the contrary. It is a shallow, superficial and patently transparent attempt to cling to the moral high ground where you obviously feel safest. Oh, well ... when push comes to shove, yet another shining light of the Krishnamurti-List shows his true colours and scurries for cover. So be it. RESPONDENT: You have said that you are the only person you are aware of in the whole world who is ‘right’. RICHARD: Indeed. You see ... I put into action that which you spoke of some time back. Viz.: [Respondent]: ‘If we would only go into ourselves deeply, it would be obvious that there is no ‘person’ there at all’. RESPONDENT: You have also said that because of that you are superior and I am inferior – not in the usual sense of inferiority, but in the sense you give to the word based on your opinion of yourself as having arrived at total, ‘post-egotistical’ perfection. RICHARD: Aye ... I have done what you merely idealise about. Viz.: [Respondent]: ‘If we admit that we are totally disordered, we shall feel the full extent of our fear and madness. And that is too appalling to us. Yet, if we just once were willing to see if that is actually the case – that we are psychologically conditioned totally – then there might just be the action of total transformation out of that state’. RESPONDENT: In my thinking, that closes all possible doors for any meaningful discussion between us. RICHARD: Yea verily ... this so that you can go on confidently saying things like this: [Respondent]: ‘We have had thousands and thousands of years of experience with self-delusion. And in all those years the human mind has produced millions of ideas about how to free itself, yet, to date that freedom is not actual’. Richard says that finally there is a freedom that is actual ... and No. 4 says: ‘I am not gunna talk to you!’ RESPONDENT: There is no way I can accept that nothing I could say would be of value to you, but that all you could say would be of value to me. RICHARD: Hmm ... where you say ‘there is no way I can accept that nothing I could say would be of value to you’ you are giving the impression that you will not converse with me unless I can learn from you. This further creates the impression that you will only correspond with someone who can be taught by you. For example: [Respondent]: ‘I say what I please and if people don’t like it, it’s their privilege’. And, furthermore: [Respondent]: ‘There is nothing I want from anyone here. I have enough already’. May I ask? Is this why you are on this Mailing List – just to teach – and is that dratted Richard undermining your hard-won position? RESPONDENT: Whether you say so or not, that position establishes you as an absolute authority, which idea, of course, for me must be regarded as nothing less than total self-delusion. RICHARD: Of course it must be ... because no one can actually arrive, in your view. After all, you did write about this very matter some time ago: [Respondent]: ‘Life, self-understanding, is learning, not arrival’. And, furthermore: [Respondent]: ‘Why do I need to show others my ‘strengths’ and ‘weaknesses’? What can they do about it? They are just as ‘weak’ as I am, just as confused. Why should I turn to other conditioned people for answers to what I, myself, am doing to myself? It is sheer nonsense’. And, most recently: [Respondent]: ‘He seems to be saying, if I may suggest it, that after his death, the possibility for insight in human action exists, but that the total transformation of human consciousness is unlikely to occur. That makes sense given his descriptions of ‘insight’ as an action of the ‘universal mind’. As it ‘makes sense’ to you that Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti must be right when he says ‘that the total transformation of human consciousness is unlikely to occur’, then I understand why you consider me to be deluded. The Master has spoken ... and who is Richard to say that he is free? Thus dead men continue to rule the living ... just as it has always been. RESPONDENT: You are certainly entitled to think of yourself in any way you wish, but when the logical extension of your self-opinion is that I can only listen to you, ask questions of you and, consequentially, accept your beliefs as THE truth for my own life, I can say nothing other than no thanks. RICHARD: Oh, I do understand ... after all, this the same No. 4, who started this thread on ‘AUTHORITY’ anyway, who is on record as saying – perhaps a trifle self-importantly – things like this: [Respondent]: ‘Nothing written with the pen or recorded on a video cassette or video tape is of interest to me’. The same No. 4 who also wrote: [Respondent]: ‘The only book I need to read is the one I have invented, which is the book of No. 4. That book holds all the secrets to confusion and sorrow, illusion and clarity’. And the same No. 4 who plainly spoke his mind: [Respondent]: ‘If I do read the words of another, it is not out of searching. It is for enjoyment of reading only’. RESPONDENT: So, with all respect to you, there won’t be further discussions between us. RICHARD: I guess that this is because I have made it quite clear that I am not going to ‘Denver’ ... where you are heading, eh? That is, I take no notice of you when you say ‘go that way’ ... which is, you say rather authoritatively: ‘the road to your own, hard-earned self-knowledge’. Viz.: [Respondent]: ‘I have not told you HOW to get to Denver, what routes to take, what you will find when you get there and its effects on you. All I’ve done is to say ‘go that way’. That is nothing but step one (...) I haven’t done one thing but point out to you the road to hell, and if you are capable of discovery, the road to your own, hard-earned self-knowledge’. It is the condescending ‘if you are capable of discovery’ bit that gives you away. RESPONDENT: I am not interested in listening to you attempt to establish yourself as the centre of truth and ‘post-enlightenment’ for the modern age. RICHARD: Okay. May I remind you of something that you wrote back when you were more wise than now? [Respondent]: ‘Only the individual has the potential to stand out-side of society and discover his/her innocence. That is the only chance society has to change’. Obviously this statement was nothing but rhetoric, eh? RESPONDENT: It would be totally futile for me, considering the finality of your self-opinion, to attempt actual communication, and life is too short to engage futility. RICHARD: Oh? You are giving up so easily? Have you met your match? [Respondent]: ‘Neither am I saying that the ‘authority people’ don’t have the right to be authoritative. They do. But it should be known that they will be challenged at every turn. Where-ever and whenever I encounter authority in the field of human development, I will be in revolt against it, not viciously or against the persons themselves, but against the attitude, the belief that the tools of perception are at the disposal of and in the hands of an elite’. Obviously just some more rhetoric designed to impress the faithful. RESPONDENT: I accept your humanity. I do not accept your self-beliefs. RICHARD: Okay. Here is a ‘thought for the day’ for you:
RICHARD: Am I to take it, then, that when it ‘is actually happening’ for No. 4 it ceases being a belief ... but when it actually happens for Richard it remains a belief? That is ... there is one rule for No. 4 and another rule for others? This is so cheap ... and reveals the shallowness of the ‘deep thought’ that you extolled at the top of this post. Thith exchange clearly revealth that you are but full of pith and wind. RESPONDENT: I hope you will forgive my straight-forwardness, as I do not believe in euphemism. RICHARD: Sure ... I am straight-forward too. Maybe you have yet to learn the lesson of your twenties: [Respondent]: ‘I understand your need to debunk authority, I went through that stage of life in my early twenties. Later, I discovered that that attitude was a hangover from fear of abuse at a time when I was actually powerless. I’m glad I discovered that, because I was then able to drop that attitude and become more open to people, to listen to them without looking for ‘authority’ so I could condemn it’. I would suggest that you are still ‘condemning it’ ... because you have made your agenda quite clear. Which is to be the self-appointed guardian for the sanctity of the ‘Teachings’ ... even at the expense of peace-on-earth. One must stifle dissent wherever it arises – all must stick to the ‘Party Line’ – and henceforth all posts will be censored, eh? Viz.: [Respondent]: ‘I am glad the discussion of authority is continuing. If nothing else, at least it is seeing its day on this Mailing List’. Meanwhile, all the wars and rapes and murders and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicide will go on for ever and a day.
RESPONDENT: Richard, I have thought deeply about our discussions of late. RICHARD: If you say so, then it must be so ... for you, that is. However, the remainder of this post shows no evidence whatsoever of deep thought ... on the contrary. It is a shallow, superficial and patently transparent attempt to cling to the moral high ground where you obviously feel safest. Oh, well ... when push comes to shove, yet another shining light of the Krishnamurti-List shows his true colours and scurries for cover. So be it. <SNIP> RESPONDENT: Yadda, yadda, yadda ... ‘Thus sayeth the lord’ ... No thanks. Heard it all before dude.
RESPONDENT No. 25: Would you be so kind as to share why you find this thread interesting enough to respond to, and what is it you are trying to point to or go into? RICHARD: I simply found it quaint that two correspondents – on a Mailing List that condemns thought
in no uncertain terms – should be so much in agreement about being ‘stunned by thinking’ how rarely they stopped and
allowed awareness – the utter fullness of total attention – to operate ... what with thought being so ‘one-dimensional’
and all. RESPONDENT: You might find it more honest to say ‘I am assuming’, than to speak with authority and finality pertaining to what I said. If you read my words again, you will not see the phrase, ‘stunned by thinking’. RICHARD: Yet if you read through my words you will see that you are assuming that I said you wrote the words ‘stunned by thinking’ ... from the very first E-Mail (Message #00757 of Archive 00/06) and all through this thread I have been attributing that phrase to its correct author and not to you at all. Therefore, if may I make a suggestion, if you are going to remonstrate on that which you assume is what another person is ‘assuming’ would it not be useful to ascertain the facts first? ‘Tis only a suggestion, of course. RESPONDENT: And the reason you won’t is because thinking is not stunning to me. RICHARD: If you think this is so then it is so ... for you. I have no notion whatsoever what goes on in your mind other than what you chose to write ... not being a mind reader how would I? As far as I am concerned the reason I will not find the phrase in your words is because I never said that you wrote them in the first place. What I wrote was that you were in agreement with what your co-respondent was stunned by thinking about ... and I provided a snipped quote to show my source (Message #00800 of Archive 00/06) because you clearly say ‘to think that ...’ directly after your ‘it is stunning isn’t it’ agreement. Viz.:
As I say ... I have no notion whatsoever what goes on in your mind other than what you choose to write. If you cannot write in a way that expresses what you mean then what am I to do? All I can go on is the words you write ... I take them at face value. RESPONDENT: What is stunning, beautiful, intrinsically eloquent, is the mind that sees without the reactions of personal thinking. RICHARD: Would you not agree, that unless ‘the mind’ that you are describing is currently operating, then this sentence is the product of the ‘reactions of personal thinking’? RESPONDENT: And you also shouldn’t generalize about the mailing list. RICHARD: I am somewhat puzzled ... surely you are not instructing me on what I should or should not do? Not that I mind, of course, if you are ... it is just that you make a big thing about others not being authoritative. RESPONDENT: The negative characterization, or any other characterization of others doesn’t really establish oneself as singularly unique or clear. RICHARD: Oh? What would ‘establish oneself as singularly unique or clear’ then? That is, how would uniqueness and clarity express itself on this mailing list if uniqueness and clarity is to be hog-tied by all the restrictions you are futilely attempting to impose upon others writing to this list? Because ‘a mind that sees without the reactions of personal thinking’ would not be so authoritative as to dictate to others what they can say or not say ... would you not agree? RESPONDENT: Although I won’t defend the list ... RICHARD: Too late ... you already did (Viz.: ‘you shouldn’t generalize about the mailing list’). RESPONDENT: I will say that it is obvious to me that thought has its uses. If that was not so, you wouldn’t be able to correspond meaningfully in Listening-I or in any other situation of daily living. RICHARD: Where have I ever said that thought does not ‘have its uses’? In fact I go much further than that: I praise thought highly. Viz.:
As a suggestion only: if you are going to continue to teach others would not doing some research be of assistance in establishing your authority to do so? * RESPONDENT: It is quite clear to me that thinking as reaction originates from a different order than thinking as useful function. RICHARD: Speaking personally, this fact became obvious to me while I was still in short pants in grade school: the pointless belligerence of playground fights and so on showed me the instinctual passions in operation ... such peoples were described as being ‘all brawn and no brains’. RESPONDENT: And how do you know who is aware and who is not? RICHARD: As I have never said that I ‘know who is aware and who is not’ I will leave this to you to answer. RESPONDENT: From badly interpreting a mailing list correspondence? RICHARD: As this is a faulty insinuation made from a false premise I will leave it to you to mull over. RESPONDENT: Let’s be accurate in our assessments of others. RICHARD: How is that possible? I cannot possibly know another person’s every thought, every feeling, every instinctual impulse ... I cannot know the nuances of their ethnic background, the intimate details of their familial upbringing, the subtleties of their peer-group aspirations and so on. If someone fondly imagines they can accurately assess another person then they may very well be fooling themselves into thinking they are operating from ‘insight’ or ‘clarity’ or some such esoteric thing. RESPONDENT: Better still, let’s not assess at all. RICHARD: Sure ... I did not take any notice of your first suggestion anyway. RESPONDENT: But before you make a conclusion and state it as a fact, it might be a matter of integrity to at least ask, ‘what do you mean by that?’ RICHARD: Oh ... did you not write clearly the first time around? And if you do not write what you mean ... is it because you do not mean what you write? Or is it that you think that you write what you mean but that what you mean is not what you think that you write? May I ask? Do you have a communication problem? You do have to point out, time and time again, to many, many different people, how they are assuming things about you when they read what you write, do you not? And here you are having to do it, yet once again, with me? Is it because one needs to think they have ‘the mind that sees without the reactions of personal thinking’ to understand you? Just curious. * RICHARD: The best that this mutual back-slapping congratulatory fervour can produce is a vow, a resolution, a promise and so on. In other words: effort. RESPONDENT: Again, here you are assuming, but this time that there is ‘mutual back slapping’. RICHARD: I am sure it will have become obvious by now that assuming that another is assuming is fraught with problems? RESPONDENT: You mean to say you derived that from the statement, ‘yes, it is stunning’. RICHARD: Not at all. I comprehended what I read by reading all of the paragraph in the context of the whole E-Mail ... and it was consistent with the entire thread I have been following plus the general thrust of what is currently being discussed by you with other posters. RESPONDENT: And without asking what was meant by that statement? RICHARD: I did not know I had to check with you and get my work vetted before I post something. RESPONDENT: And then the imagination goes even further and concludes that there is some ‘congratulatory fervour’. RICHARD: If I may point out? You are assuming that ‘imagination’ is operating ... not that I mind, of course, it is just that you make a big thing about other people assuming. RESPONDENT: Which produces ‘vows’, ‘resolutions’, ‘promises and so on’, and that all that amounts to ‘effort’. RICHARD: Well ... no, not at all. Be it far from me to second-guess what is occurring in your mind but it sure looks like you are ... um ... assuming something here that just does not jell with the very clearly articulated sentence. I said that ‘the best this can produce is ...’ and never stated that it had indeed produced it as an established fact. I was proposing the most likely outcome drawn from my own experience. RESPONDENT: Really, Richard, you ought not give your imagination so much leeway and pretence of certainty. RICHARD: Surely you are not instructing me on what I ought or ought not do? Not that I mind, of course, it is just that you make a big thing about other people not teaching. RESPONDENT: Especially in the absence of information from another which may have either corroborated your ‘facts’ or opened them up for mutual investigation. RICHARD: The last time we corresponded you made it quite clear, in matter of fact terms, that you had no intention of ever corresponding with me ever again because you assumed that I have nothing to learn from you because you thought that you were unable to teach me anything I did not already know. In fact, your parting words to me were:
I got the message and have never bothered you since then with any of my ‘yadda’ ... it is too late to cry !foul! now because I did not present the facts to you first for ‘mutual investigation’. When you closed the door on communication I left it closed ... after all: it is your door. * RICHARD: What I am ‘trying to point to or go into’ is that it is wrong thinking – rather than thinking per se – subsequent to the event as being that which prevents the happening from occurring just here right now as you read these words. Thought cops so much blame ... thus the thinker gets off scot-free. RESPONDENT: Who is blaming thought for anything? RICHARD: I am not going to provide you with a list of names ... it would take far too long. RESPONDENT: To me – again – it is quite clear that thought has its uses in the world of human living. The observation of the ineffectiveness of self-centred thinking is not blaming thought. It is simply the acknowledgement of certain of its limitations. RICHARD: Okay ... as you say that this is what you think then that must be what you think. It does seem rather strange that all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides and the such-like are caused by the failure to make ‘the acknowledgement of certain of [thought’s] limitations’, though. * RESPONDENT No. 25: Oh, I don’t know. No. 4 and I are trying to look at what thought is doing ... and missing. RICHARD: Yea verily ... and it is because the thinker is polluting thought that thought is doing what
it is doing ... and missing. RESPONDENT: What is truly missing here is integrity. RICHARD: If I may suggest? You are assuming that ‘integrity’ is missing ... not that I mind, of course, it is just that you make a big thing about other people assuming. RESPONDENT: Why do you want to establish yourself as the judge – not in terms of morality but in terms of discernment – who can determine from one phrase, the state of another’s mind? RICHARD: I only go by the words you write ... I cannot know what goes on in your mind. Thus I read your posts to this Mailing List and nowhere have you ever written that ‘the thinker’ is no more, permanently. If what is presently happening in your skull is otherwise, and if you want people like me to know so that episodes like this one do not occur again, then why not say that ‘the thinker’ is no more ... so that I can know at least that much about what the state of your mind is? Until then, my statement holds true: it is because the thinker is polluting thought that thought is doing what it is doing ... and missing. RESPONDENT: Although No. 25 may conclude that he is ‘missing’, I don’t think you can graft his self-opinion onto me. RICHARD: Oh? Am I to take it that you are not missing? If so, then why not write that in your E-Mails ... otherwise people like me, who take your words at face value, will gain the wrong impression. RESPONDENT: I’m not defending myself though. RICHARD: Feel free to defend yourself ... I do not mind at all. RESPONDENT: But I do feel that I want to challenge this ‘mutual backslapping’, to use your words, that is engaged and without the benefit of total understanding of the facts involved. RICHARD: Hokey-dokey ... challenge away, then. * RESPONDENT No. 25: I see what you are saying. RICHARD: Good ... having established this fact, it is important not to turn the thinker into the
villain, an enemy: the thinker is thus one’s greatest ally ... now that this fact is seen. RESPONDENT: The thinker is neither ally nor enemy. RICHARD: Surely you are not being authoritative? Not that I mind, of course, it is just that you make a big thing about others not being authoritative towards you. RESPONDENT: It is simply what is there as reduced, narrowed consciousness that is moving day and night. RICHARD: If you say so then it is so ... for you. I will keep my own counsel on the matter, though, if that is all right by you? Because it does seem rather strange that all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides and the such-like are caused by a ‘reduced, narrowed consciousness that is moving day and night’ that is ‘neither ally nor enemy’. RESPONDENT: To really see that is the release of that consciousness from its limitations. RICHARD: Again it seems like you are being an authority? Not that I mind, of course, it is just that you make a big thing about others not being an authority. RESPONDENT: To regard the thinker as an ally is to identify with it and thus, to assure its continuance as some hero or teacher. RICHARD: Oh, well ... all I know is what worked for me. May I ask? What was it that worked for you, then? RESPONDENT: To rail against it is to identify with it and to make of it a protagonist to be avoided at all costs. RICHARD: Yes ... it is important not to turn the thinker into the villain, an enemy, eh? * RESPONDENT No. 25: Are you back-slapping yourself by positing your own authority on this in contrast to your characterisation of No. 4 and I? RICHARD: Of course I am. I praise success and criticise failure because I like my fellow human beings
... peace-on-earth is at stake. RESPONDENT: And that peace is not furthered by assuming the role of the self-anointed critic who determines, through his presumptions – which are based on his own misunderstandings and selective interpretations – who is failing and who is succeeding. RICHARD: Bravo ... when you criticise a critic you certainly do not mince words, do you? Were you inspired by my flowery language (‘mutual back-slapping congratulatory fervour’) and sought to emulate? Viz.:
It is great fun being expressive, is it not? RESPONDENT: It is meaningless to both praise and criticize. RICHARD: Are you really saying that points 1 – 5 in your previous sentence (as eloquent as they are) are ‘meaningless’? If so, you have my full agreement. RESPONDENT: Neither habit contributes to an environment in which learning can flower. RICHARD: Ahh ... I see that you managed to write in such a way that no learning was able to flower in this E-Mail to me, eh? RESPONDENT: They only fortify that ego which feels the need to be more important than others, by its comparison of itself to them. RICHARD: There is a sure-fire way to find out if this is an accurate observation or just another attempt to teach: did your criticisms (points 1 – 5 in your sentence above) ‘fortify that ego which feels the need to be more important than others, by its comparison of itself to them’ or not? Just curious.
RESPONDENT: Let’s be accurate in our assessments of others. RICHARD: How is that possible? I cannot possibly know another person’s every thought, every feeling, every instinctual impulse ... I cannot know the nuances of their ethnic background, the intimate details of their familial upbringing, the subtleties of their peer-group aspirations and so on. If someone fondly imagines they can accurately assess another person then they may very well be fooling themselves into thinking they are operating from ‘insight’ or ‘clarity’ or some such esoteric thing. <SNIP> RESPONDENT to No. 49: I discovered that I could see things a whole lot better without thinking about them. Somehow there was understanding without knowledge. I didn’t even have sufficient knowledge at that time to express some things I understood, especially certain ‘principles’ – as they are called when spelled out in linear language – of how the universe operates and how consciousness operates ... <SNIP> ... I don’t put much value on ethnic background, familial upbringing and other factors which may be operating as a pattern. I only see that a pattern is operating in a person and I listen for an opening which will allow for the penetration of that pattern. It is not the words, however, that penetrate. It is the words spoken at the right moment. Naturally, it is up to the person whether they are listening or not, and can see past the words to the energy of the moment which the words represent. Sometimes there is a palpable change in another which they can feel. Sometimes there is a change in another which is not obvious. And sometimes there is no change at all when the fear is too great, or the pattern is too firmly entrenched. RESPONDENT No. 49 to No. 4: I think this pattern which you are talking about is what Richard calls ‘ethnic background, familial upbringing, etc.’ So what is the matter of disagreement between you two gentlemen? RICHARD: Perhaps the answer to your question will become obvious if what No. 4 was explaining to you
(above) is arranged sequentially? Viz.: No. 4 says he sees a personal history and circumstances pattern in the other person; No. 4
says he sees things a whole lot better without thinking about them; No. 4 says he does not value much the other person’s
personal history and circumstances; No. 4 says he knows there is understanding without knowledge; No. 4 says he knows certain
principles of how consciousness operates; No. 4 says he knows certain principles of how the universe operates; No. 4 says he hears
an opening for his thoughtless understanding to penetrate their pattern; No. 4 says he knows the right moment to say his
penetrating words; No. 4 says he knows that their change is dependent upon them listening to him; No. 4 says his penetrating words
represent his energy at the moment. As a result of No. 4’s energetic words: No. 4 says he sometimes see a palpable change in the
other person; No. 4 says he sometimes see a change in the other person which is not obvious; No. 4 says he sometimes see that
there is no change in the other person. If there is no change: No. 4 says he knows that they were not listening to his energy; No.
4 says he knows that their fear prevents his energy changing them; No. 4 says he knows that the pattern he does not value much is
too firmly entrenched for his energy to change them. I am currently the ‘other person’ that No. 4 has chosen to energetically
write to ... I made the mistake of taking his words at face value when writing to another instead of listening to his energy. RESPONDENT: Why do you want to twist what I say by reshaping it sequentially in order to make it appear as you wish it to? RICHARD: This is an assumptive question (as in ‘have you stopped beating your wife yet’). I did not ‘want to twist’ your words (that is your assumption); I was not ‘reshaping’ your words (that is your assumption) ... I arranged them sequentially for two reasons:
So, shall we investigate together, you and I? For starters, could you explain how I ‘twisted’ and ‘reshaped’ the following words when I arranged your explanation sequentially:
RESPONDENT: Now I am quite certain of your fakery. Only a self-protective, self-serving mind resorts to ‘tactics’ in order to paint another as he wants himself and others to see that other. RICHARD: If I may point out? You are assuming that I ‘resorted to ‘tactics’’; you are assuming that I arranged your words sequentially ‘in order to paint another’ in a particular way; you are assuming that I am a person who ‘wants himself and others’ to see you as I supposedly ‘paint’ you. Therefore your certitude about Richard’s ‘fakery’ is based upon a raft of assumptions. RESPONDENT: You know, if I chose to arrange some of your statements sequentially, as you have done mine, I am quite sure that the list would require several emails, and at the end of it, I could make a case for complete insanity on the part of the subject of that list. RICHARD: Why would you want to do that? I make no secret of the fact that I have been rigorously examined, by two accredited psychiatrists and a psychologist over a three-year period, and have been found to have a severe and incurable psychotic mental disorder – what used to be called insanity in less politically correct days – and have an official certificate to the effect that my condition corresponds with the criterion laid down in the DSM-IV (the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders – fourth edition) which is the analytical criteria used by all psychiatrists and psychologists around the world for establishing mental disorders. I have the following symptoms:
However, if this is not sufficient evidence then please do go ahead with your list of sequentially arranged statements of mine ... anything I have to say can breeze through any kind of scrutiny and be found to completely support the official findings of a severe and incurable psychotic mental disorder. RESPONDENT: Any propagandist of mediocre skill can do what you did. RICHARD: Well, it certainly does not take great talent to arrange words sequentially ... if that is what you mean? You were the author of your own words ... I simply added ‘No. 4 says he sees’ and ‘No. 4 says he knows’ in front of each of your statements. Where is the problem? RESPONDENT: When the mind is challenged, the true nature of the heart becomes utterly obvious. RICHARD: The ‘true nature of the heart’ in this flesh and blood body is that it is a truly marvellous muscular pump circulating life-sustaining blood throughout the entire organism. This fact became obvious, however, when the metaphysical ‘heart’ was patiently investigated ... and not when ‘the mind was challenged’. Thought cops all the blame ... thus ‘me’ and/or ‘Me’ in the metaphysical heart gets off scot-free.
RESPONDENT No. 4 to No. 49: I discovered that I could see things a whole lot better without thinking about them. Somehow there was understanding without knowledge. I didn’t even have sufficient knowledge at that time to express some things I understood, especially certain ‘principles’ – as they are called when spelled out in linear language – of how the universe operates and how consciousness operates ... <SNIP> ... I don’t put much value on ethnic background, familial upbringing and other factors which may be operating as a pattern. I only see that a pattern is operating in a person and I listen for an opening which will allow for the penetration of that pattern. It is not the words, however, that penetrate. It is the words spoken at the right moment. Naturally, it is up to the person whether they are listening or not, and can see past the words to the energy of the moment which the words represent. Sometimes there is a palpable change in another which they can feel. Sometimes there is a change in another which is not obvious. And sometimes there is no change at all when the fear is too great, or the pattern is too firmly entrenched. RESPONDENT No. 49 to No. 4: I think this pattern which you are talking about is what Richard calls ‘ethnic background, familial upbringing, etc.’ So what is the matter of disagreement between you two gentlemen? RICHARD: Perhaps the answer to your question will become obvious if what No. 4 was explaining to you
(above) is arranged sequentially ... <SNIP>... I am currently the ‘other person’ that No. 4 has chosen to energetically
write to ... I made the mistake of taking his words at face value when writing to another instead of listening to his energy. RESPONDENT: Why do you want to twist what I say by reshaping it sequentially in order to make it appear as you wish it to? RICHARD: This is an assumptive question (as in ‘have you stopped beating your wife yet’). I did not ‘want to twist’ your words (that is your assumption); I was not ‘reshaping’ your words (that is your assumption) ... I arranged them sequentially for two reasons: 1. Another correspondent asked ‘what is the matter of disagreement between you two gentlemen’ even after having read what you wrote (further above). 2. I am seeking to comprehend why – when I or someone else responds to your words – you negate what your words say by telling your co-respondent that they are ‘assuming’ or ‘interpreting’ or in some other way inferring that they know what is going on in your mind and/or know your state of mind ... even when your co-respondent says otherwise (as in ‘I am not a mind-reader’) ...<SNIP>... So, shall we investigate together, you and I? For starters, could you explain how I ‘twisted’ and ‘reshaped’ the following words when I arranged your explanation sequentially ...<SNIP>... RESPONDENT: It’s similar to what you did recently when you produced a long paragraph full of K phrases which all seemed negative when they were reproduced as fragmented statements. It’s about context and what happens when you exclude that context by rearranging what was said in a way which changes the meaning of what was said into simple, icon-like statements onto which you can superimpose your own meanings. It’s really propaganda and it is dishonest. RICHARD: Okay ... before I proceed with any more of your response I wish to demonstrate how I read the essence of what some one is saying ... stripped of what is non-essential. I will re-present what you wrote in total, in context, as un-fragmented statements, as non-rearranged, as non-iconic statements, as non-superimposed meanings. Viz.:
Is this okay? Is the essence of what you were conveying intact? Is this in total, in context, as un-fragmented statements, as non-rearranged, as non-iconic statements, as non-superimposed meanings? Now if I take each sentence and put a carriage return (‘enter’) after each period. ... is it in total, in context, as un-fragmented statements, as non-rearranged, as non-iconic statements, as non-superimposed meanings? Is the essence of what you were conveying intact? Viz.:
Is this okay? Is the essence of what you were conveying intact? Is this in total, in context, as un-fragmented statements, as non-rearranged, as non-iconic statements, as non-superimposed meanings? Is all I have done is to put a line break at the end of each sentence? Now if I take each sentence and italicise the essence of what you were conveying ... is the essence in the total, in the context, as un-fragmented statements, as non-rearranged, as non-iconic statements, as non-superimposed meanings? Is the essence of what you were conveying intact? Viz.:
Is this okay? Is the essence of what you were conveying intact? Is this essence in total, in its context, as un-fragmented statements, as non-rearranged, as non-iconic statements, as non-superimposed meanings? Is all I have done is to italicise the essence of what you were conveying? Now if I take each sentence and put your name at the beginning ... is it in the total, in the context, as un-fragmented statements, as non-rearranged, as non-superimposed meanings? Is the essence of what you were conveying intact? Viz.:
Is this okay? Is the essence of what you were conveying intact? Is this in the total, in the context, as un-fragmented statements, as non-rearranged, as non-superimposed meanings? Is all I have done is to put your name at the beginning of each sentence? Now if I take each sentence and put ‘No. 4 says he sees’ or ‘No. 4 says he knows’ in the beginning and strike out your personalising words ... is it in the context, as non-rearranged, as non-superimposed meanings? Is the essence of what you were conveying intact? Viz.:
Is this okay? Is the essence of what you were conveying intact? Is this in the context, as non-rearranged, as non-superimposed meanings? Is all I have done is to take each sentence and put ‘No. 4 says he sees’ or ‘No. 4 says he knows’ in the beginning and struck out your personalising words? Now if I take out each struck-out personalising word and other accessory sentences ... what happens? Viz.:
Is this okay? Is the essence of what you were conveying intact? Because the next step was to paraphrase it. Viz.:
Is this okay? Is the essence of what you were conveying intact? Because the next step was to present it succinctly ... and arrange it sequentially
Now can we look at your response to where I said ‘so, shall we investigate together ... could you explain how I ‘twisted’ and ‘reshaped’ the words when I arranged your explanation sequentially’. Viz.:
Do you still think I am superimposing my own meanings? Do you still think I am making them negative by reproducing fragments? Do you still think I am excluding context ... to the detriment of the essence of what you are conveying? Do you still think I am doing propaganda? Do you still think I am being dishonest? Do you see that I simply arranged your words sequentially so that your co-respondent could see the essence of what you were saying ... and see the obvious answer to the question: ‘So what is the matter of disagreement between you two gentlemen?’ The question now is: do you see what the matter of the disagreement is?
RICHARD: I am currently the ‘other person’ that No. 4 has chosen to energetically write to ... I made
the mistake of taking his words at face value when writing to another instead of listening to his energy. RESPONDENT: The perfect propaganda coup which supposedly overthrows the integrity and value of another human being’s words and establishes oneself as a victim rather than as a scoundrel. RICHARD: Shall I put it this way? 1: You did choose to write to me (despite your ‘yadda, yadda, yadda’ avowal not to) and not vice versa ... I was happily having a discussion with another correspondent.
2: You chose to write to me to point out and/or explain to me (or whatever description) where I was going wrong and/or seeing incorrectly and/or misrepresenting your words (or whatever description) ... in other words, that I was making the mistake of taking your words at face value – for what they literally said – when writing to another instead of ‘listening to the energy of the moment that the words represent’.
3: I said ‘energetically’ because you state that the ‘energy of the moment’ is what ‘the words represent’ (the words which appear on this screen under your name) and that it is up to the person reading the words to see ‘past the words’ so as to see the ‘energy of the moment’.
4: I am not doing any propaganda coup whatsoever (whether it be a ‘perfect’ or not is beside the point) ... that depiction is either your assumption (using old-fashioned lingo) or it is that ‘readiness’, that ‘openness to reality’ (your words for insight) which is comprehending that what is happening is ‘the perfect propaganda coup’.
5: I am not a victim at all (I am having so much fun here at the keyboard) ... that vision is either your assumption (using old-fashioned lingo) or it is that that ‘readiness’, that ‘openness to reality’ (your words for insight) which is comprehending that ‘what is happening’ (your synonym for ‘another person’) is ‘establishing oneself as a victim’.
6: I am not ‘a scoundrel’ at all (I mean what I say and I say what I mean) ... that spectre is either your assumption (using old-fashioned lingo) or it is that ‘readiness’, that ‘openness to reality’ (your words for insight) which is comprehending that ‘what is happening’ (your synonym for ‘another person’) is ‘a scoundrel’.
It is this simple: as there is no imaginative/ intuitive faculty extant it is impossible for me to form images. Thus I cannot see what you see (the ‘energy of the moment’ that ‘the words represent’). Perhaps the following dialogue may throw some light upon the matter:
In Australia there is an apt expression: ‘come in spinner’ * RESPONDENT: I pity you. RICHARD: Be it far from me to advise you what to do or what not to do ... but feeling anything for me is a complete and utter waste of time (there is no psyche extant to pick up and/or receive either feeling vibes or psychic currents). Presumably it makes you feel good about yourself for feeling that feeling, though? RESPONDENT: It’s a shame to have all that verbal ability and to use it so nefariously. RICHARD: Am I to take it that you are saying (and/or ‘the energy that the words represent’ is indicating) that someone writing about peace-on-earth, as an alternative to spiritualism’s after-death ‘Peace That Passeth All Understanding’, is thus using their abilities ‘nefariously’ (nefarious: wicked, evil, despicable, depraved, reprehensible)? What has the ‘energy of the moment’ got against peace-on-earth? * RESPONDENT: You are definitely not what you are trying to convince people that you are. You are a deceiver, a liar of the worst kind ... RICHARD: May I ask? Is this No. 4 talking ... or is this ‘the energy of the moment’ let loose on the world? RESPONDENT: ... because people listen to you and take what you say seriously. RICHARD: Is it not a strange type of reasoning that deduces, from what other people do or do not do, that someone is ‘a deceiver, a liar of the worst kind’? RESPONDENT: But inside you are a vulture, a buzzard who preys on the gullibility of others ... RICHARD: My guess is that this is ‘the energy of the moment’ operating ... I am sure No. 4 would not want to talk to a fellow human being like this. RESPONDENT: ... with the hope of establishing yourself as some singularly pristine and compassionate human being who is the greatest, most realized and free human being who has ever lived. RICHARD: Hmm ... ‘hope’ ... ‘compassionate’ ... ‘realised’? Has ‘the energy of the moment’ not been doing its homework? Has that famed ‘readiness, an openness to reality which is comprehending what is happening’ missed its mark? Oh well ... so much for ‘insight’, eh? * RESPONDENT: But you are only seeking disciples to adore you. RICHARD: You know ... the more you allow ‘the energy of the moment’ to operate the more you become even less credible than before. Because I have made it quite clear, time and again, that I do not want any one coming to me – for their own freedom – as I am having too much fun, living my life in the way I see fit, to clutter up my lifestyle with ‘guru-circuit’ peoples, who cannot think for themselves, trooping daily through my front door. The Internet is my chosen means of dissemination for the obvious reason of being interactive and rapid. The electronic copying and distribution capacity of a mailing list service – with it’s multiple feed-back capability – is second to none. Words are words, whether they be thought, spoken, printed or appear as pixels on a screen. Ultimately it is what is being said or written, by the writer or the speaker that lives what is being expressed, that is important ... and facts and actuality then speak for themselves. Anyone who has met me face-to-face only gets verification that there is actually a flesh and blood body that lives what these words say. I am a fellow human being sans identity ... there is no ‘charisma’ nor any ‘energy-field’ here. The affective faculty – the entire psyche itself – is eradicated: I have no ‘energy’ operating ... no power or powers whatsoever. There is no ‘good’ and ‘evil’ here in this actual world. RESPONDENT: And on that note, I must tell you Richard, that there is no purpose for me to continue discussing with you. RICHARD: Hokey-dokey ... may I leave you with some words of wisdom? Viz.:
RESPONDENT: It would be like trying to be friends with a mamba snake. His sole intention is to destroy ... nothing else. RICHARD: Ahh ... now we get to the nitty-gritty, eh? Yet I make no secret of my agenda ... I do not beat about the bush. For eleven years I was driven by some ‘energy’ to spread ‘The Word’ (by whatever name) and that had never been my intention before that when I first had what is known as a pure consciousness experience (PCE). That peak experience initiated my incursion into all matters metaphysical, culminating in the ‘death’ of my ego and catapulting me into the sacred and imbuing me with/immersing me in love and compassion and beauty and truth. My intent had been to cleanse myself of all that is detrimental to personal happiness and interpersonal harmony ... in other words: peace on earth in our life-time. Instead of that rather simple ambition, I found that I was impelled on an odyssey to be the latest ‘Saviour of Humankind’ in a long list of enlightened ‘Beings’ ... and that imposition did not sit well with me, as they had all failed with their ‘Teachings’. After something like five thousand years of recorded history, humankind was nowhere nearer to peace and harmony than before. Indeed, because of the much-touted Love and Compassion, much Hatred and Bloodshed had followed in their wake. That abysmal fate was something I wish to avoid repeating, whatever the personal cost in terms of losing the much-prized state of ‘Being’. My diagnosis back then, which enabled me to be here today, was simple: If I am driven by some ‘energy’ – no matter how ‘good’ that ‘energy’ be – then I am not actually free.
CORRESPONDENT No. 04: (Part Four) RETURN TO CORRESPONDENCE LIST ‘B’ INDEX RETURN TO RICHARD’S CORRESPONDENCE INDEX The Third Alternative (Peace On Earth In This Life Time As This Flesh And Blood Body) Here is an actual freedom from the Human Condition, surpassing Spiritual Enlightenment and any other Altered State Of Consciousness, and challenging all philosophy, psychiatry, metaphysics (including quantum physics with its mystic cosmogony), anthropology, sociology ... and any religion along with its paranormal theology. Discarding all of the beliefs that have held humankind in thralldom for aeons, the way has now been discovered that cuts through the ‘Tried and True’ and enables anyone to be, for the first time, a fully free and autonomous individual living in utter peace and tranquillity, beholden to no-one.
Richard's Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust:
1997-. All Rights Reserved.
Disclaimer |
